Freedom is choosing to grow unimpeded by others, that does not mean not being influenced by others.
— Brett

But what of the subconscious? Even subtle gestures can influence how you live your life without you even knowing. — TogetherTurtle

I’m not sure if my post was clear to you. I meant I accept the idea of the influence of the world at large upon me.

Yeah, I think I may have misread. It might have been later at night, sorry about that. Even so, I think it’s hard to know when you’re being influenced versus when you are being impeded.

No one can be truly free since no one chooses to be born. We are fettered by reality, and at least whilst we live; are unable to escape it.
In this way freedoms may be considered, debated confirmed and denied, all whilst at the same time being subordinate to something and never true freedoms.

Social freedoms in this sense then are artificial, invented by humans, and valued by humans alone.
Physical freedoms apply to anything that can experience its existence.

I live in a 'free' and democratic society, but I am not free to do as I wish with recompense, there are laws and consequences in place to try and prevent me from just this.
There are some things I am ' free' to do, but the since the line between your private and public life is blurred, and to some degree, with the invasive nature of social media, nonexistent. This means that if what I do in my private life enters the public sphere it is scrutinised and deemed 'allowable', 'tolerable', 'criminal' or other social qualia, whereby limits and consequences are imposed on your actions. In this way then your private life is also being scrutinised in case it strays into public life, and how any behaviors may be perceived.
This is not truly freedom.

Another degree of freedom denied to us is the way in which we experience the external world: I am free to experience the sensual world, however I am a slave to my senses. In considering that I am free to see, but only via the physical processes I possess, Bees can experience the ultraviolet for instance.
Whilst we can now make machines that allow us the see the ultra violet spectrum, we still only see what we think it would look like using a visible light spectrum representation, built through scientific methodology that is designed to create a way to find what you set out to find. We can never truly know what the ultraviolet looks like, only what we tell ourselves we think it looks like.

We can have societal freedoms extended to us, but these can be rescinded if we break certain rules, not necessarily of our choosing, therefore in social consideration one is only as free as your neighbors allow you to be.
In a physical sense one is only as free as reality allows, we cannot comprehend non-reality, and are therefore bound by reality.

This means that to me the only true freedom we can have is of the mind. Our deliberate thoughts. The monkey mind can be quietened and you can cultivate a peace in which your mind is free, endless and yours.

I like your question about Freedom, its a simple question that opens such a wide area to discuss and ponder, "We know the difference between the reality of freedom and illusion of freedom." This, for those who don't recognize, is a movie quote, and the actor was John Trudell. John Trudell was known for his activism and political views about Indians or Native Americans. And although this was a movie quote, there are many people, myself included that believe in the concept.
I'm considered an elder amongst some of my people, and one generation away from people that were free and still straddled two areas continents before they were became countries. A time before so many imaginary lines were drawn to mark territory. I like your question about Freedom. Yet how can one ponder it without revealing their feelings about contemporary nations that exist today, for comparison of a New Nation?

Forgive me but all peoples since the dawn of what is considered human society have drawn 'lines' to mark territories.
This isn't an issue of freedom, as an individual is free to occupy a point in space and call it ' their space' this extends to a living space to sustain and support.

*edit: han to human...fat thumbs*

My point wasn't exactly about marking territories as it was to be able to move freely, live freely within confines of acceptable decent human behavior.

Even so, I think it’s hard to know when you’re being influenced versus when you are being impeded. — TogetherTurtle

I just read this. Yes that’s true.

Yet how can one ponder it without revealing their feelings about contemporary nations that exist today, for comparison of a New Nation? — Michael Edwards

Maybe you’re right, in that to start a discussion you need to first state where you stand. However, I wanted to avoid influencing the answers of others as much as possible. It probably didn’t work.

No one can be truly free since no one chooses to be born. We are fettered by reality, and at least whilst we live; are unable to escape it. — 420mindfulness

Does this mean you are an antinatalist?

This means that to me the only true freedom we can have is of the mind. Our deliberate thoughts. The monkey mind can be quietened and you can cultivate a peace in which your mind is free, endless and yours. — 420mindfulness

But then again, you can only imagine what you can imagine. Reality seems to limit the broadness of imagination.

Freedom - the conditions under which autonomy may be expanded and maintained.

Freedom - the conditions under which autonomy may be expanded and maintained. — fdrake

This seems to imply that freedom cannot be permanent, that eventually, we will hit a wall and not be able to expand our autonomy.

This seems to imply that freedom cannot be permanent, that eventually, we will hit a wall and not be able to expand our autonomy. — TogetherTurtle

Freedom's always going to be particularised, if we're always in a state of freedom, that sense of freedom becomes politically irrelevant regardless of its ontological richness. Freedom should always be thought of as a political/social/cultural direction of development rather than equated with any existing state of affairs. Freedom which is gained needs to be defended.

We're always on the precipice of greater freedom, or losing it.

I am not, I suppose you could say nobody chooses to exist is more appropriate? I mean you personally do not make a free choice. The same with your physical looks (body mods aside).
My point was more that choice is denied, taking freedom with it.

But you are still completely free to imagine only what you can imagine. That cannot be controlled by any other person.

Freedom's always going to be particularised, if we're always in a state of freedom, that sense of freedom becomes politically irrelevant regardless of its ontological richness. Freedom should always be thought of as a political/social/cultural direction of development rather than equated with any existing state of affairs. Freedom which is gained needs to be defended.

We're always on the precipice of greater freedom, or losing it. — fdrake

I guess then we're left with the original question then, "What is freedom to you". There are so many different directions we can develop in and I'd be hard pressed to say that only one is correct.

I am not, I suppose you could say nobody chooses to exist is more appropriate? I mean you personally do not make a free choice. The same with your physical looks (body mods aside).
My point was more that choice is denied, taking freedom with it. — 420mindfulness

Then we're in agreement then. Freedom is lost, but it isn't inherently wrong to remove freedom.

But you are still completely free to imagine only what you can imagine. That cannot be controlled by any other person. — 420mindfulness

I think that what you can imagine can be influenced somewhat. In George Orwell's 1984, the government is actively seeking to change the very being of language to make imagining any form of freedom impossible. Now there is, of course, some unclearness as to if something like that is even possible, but I would say that depending on where you grew up, your culture (created by others) definitely influences what stories you enjoy or can even conceive of on your own.

Speaking of 1984, if you haven't read it I recommend it. It seems to be so important to the discussion that the first person to respond referenced it.

But they are still your thoughts

This means that to me the only true freedom we can have is of the mind. Our deliberate thoughts. The monkey mind can be quietened and you can cultivate a peace in which your mind is free, endless and yours. — 420mindfulness

Everything else is a negotiation; an intricate and ever-changing set of relationships through which we convert that potential of our minds into ‘reality’ in the context of our interaction with an unfolding universe. Without interaction, our mind has only potential freedom.

But they are still your thoughts — 420mindfulness

Ownership is a sort of freedom, yes, but the less you own the less freedom you have via ownership.

Are thoughts property?

I would consider them so. Not in the traditional sense, of course, since thoughts can be transferred between individuals without the originator losing ownership, but they are something you can “have” per se. While a new car or house or boat is something you own and can refuse to share, thoughts are, by our very nature, meant to be shared, and if you try to be selfish and keep your thoughts to yourself, I think you will quickly go mad.

Thoughts can be considered no more property than your body can. Interestingly this links nicely to the subject.
However thoughts are part of you. They change with you as does your physical self.
When you share a thought, you share a part of yourself, and your self.
You are truly free in the choice to share or not share this part of you with anything outside of yourself.

Thoughts can be considered no more property than your body can. Interestingly this links nicely to the subject. — 420mindfulness

Is your body not considered your property? Isn't a major theme of slavery the fact that you don't own your body?

You are truly free in the choice to share or not share this part of you with anything outside of yourself. — 420mindfulness

I don't see how that means you don't own the thoughts you have in your head. Thoughts are unique in that you can share them without losing them. I think that's really the only distinction.

Yea we're all already Freedom from born so why bother Freedom when we all Already Freedom.

Does anyone know of a good deconstruction of Issiah Berlin's Two Concepts of Liberty? I had this idea that positive liberties were more preferable, but, that negative liberties were all that a person has to level an argument with. You would prefer to have the freedom to do things, but, can usually only state a position with the freedom from whatever. I feel like his concepts might not add up to anything, though. Everyone has the freedom to do whatever they want to at all times. You can just spontaneously jump into a song and dance routine if you really feel like doing so. Negative freedoms seem to be the only freedoms that would be usually relevant to politics. Everyone, for the most part, already agrees with positive liberty. While his preference for positive liberty is sensible, negative liberties seem to be the only thing that people would really want to debate.

That's a bit off topic, but, I do think that it could be relevant to the discussion.

I see freedom as something that everyone already has. Everyone already has a limitless potential for agency. Subjugation relies on pathology. That there are people who are not free is resultant of some form of cult or another. In short, the problem is largely psychological.

Freedom proliferates by its expression alone. There is an indelible movement towards the liberation of all humanity that is just simply stifled by that people are willing to become subject to cult pathology in what more or less amount to schemes designed to limit the freedom of others. The liberation of all humanity may not necessarily prevail, but, it is a project that is always already being carried out.

I haven't quite hashed this all out, but, those are some of my preliminary thoughts on freedom. Take from them what you will.

I see freedom as something that everyone already has. Everyone already has a limitless potential for agency. Subjugation relies on pathology. That there are people who are not free is resultant of some form of cult or another. In short, the problem is largely psychological. — thewonder

Freedom is stifled by our awareness of that potential for agency. You can try to convince someone that they have limitless potential or that they can or can’t do certain things - but in the end it’s how we see our own potential in relation to space, time, value and meaning structures of the universe that determines what we can’t or won’t do.

In order to spontaneously jump into a song and dance routine, for instance, we need to believe that the sum effect of spontaneously jumping into a song and dance routine on our subjective experience of the universe will be positive. For some people, this may take a lot of education or new experiences that alter the structures in their subjective experience of the universe for them to even see this potential, let alone recognise its overall effect as positive.

But IMHO it is often a fear of this limitless potential in others that motivates us to willingly subjugate ourselves (and those with whom we interact) to value and meaning structures designed to limit freedom.

I don't see why that would take a lot of education, but, I do like the point that you make.

I don't see why that would take a lot of education, but, I do like the point that you make. — thewonder

By ‘education’, I just mean second or third-hand (abstract) experiences that point to information, rather than first-hand experiences in which we process the information directly.

I figured as such. I was just kidding.

I had this idea that positive liberties were more preferable, but, that negative liberties were all that a person has to level an argument with. — thewonder

How do you decide what is a positive liberty and what is a negative one?

Freedom, as I understand it, is the absence of coercion. So it’s more a duty each of us have to refrain from coercing others.